( (formerly Transportation-Communication Division, BRAC) PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-
 Communication Division, BRAC, on the Long Island RailRoad, T-C 5872, that:

 1. Carrier violated the Agreement when it issued discipline of 30 days suspension against Train Director R. E. O'Flaherty and in addition disqualified him as a Tra cause.

 2. Carrier shall be required to pay Claimant for all days lost due to his suspension (30 days) and also the difference between the pay of Train Director at Divide Tower and the extra man's rate of pay every day until this matter is settled. The Union also demands Claimant be reinstated as Train Director at Div
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was the regularly assigned relief Train
 Director at Divide Tower. Claimant has a number of years of service with Carrier, however he had held the position of Train Director at Divide Tower for approximately six (6) years at the time of the incident.

 On July 18, 1972, Claimant overlooked delivering Train Order No. 124. The Conductor contacted Claimant as to the work lineup. The Claimant gave the Conductor necessary work information, and in doing so, overlooked the Train Order. This oversight occurred at approximately 10:05 p.m. Almost immediately thereafter, the Train Dispatcher inquired as to the time Train Order No. 124 was delivered. Claimant advised that he had overlooked it, and was told by the Train Dispatcher to deliver the Train Order to the crew at "BK." The delivery was completed at 10:23 p.m. At 10:47 p.m., Claimant was removed from service.

 Thereafter, Claimant was charged with a violation of certain operating rules concerning his oversight. After investigation, Claimant was suspended from work for thirty (30) days and disqualified as a Train Director, but only at Divide Tower.


There is no question that, in fact, Claimant did violate operating rules concerning his failure to properly deliver the Train Order.

 Basically, this dispute concerns the severity of the punishment which the Organization claims to
In this regard, the Organization states that the Carrier had not given Claimant prior notice that disqualification would be under consideration and that it was improper to disqualify the Claimant based upon a disciplinary hearing. The Organization cites as authority, Award 14063 and 16674. We note that in Award 14063, the claim was sustained based on certain procedural matters, but the Award stated that disqualification can properly be impo 16674 the claim was sustained because, in the judgment of the Board, there were extenuating circumstances.

 We note, however, certain Awards which have held that disqualification is an appropriate means o Award 13854 and 13648.

 We do not conclude that punishment of disqualification is improper disciplinary action. Certainl from service for an infraction of an operating or safety rule, the Carrier is, in point of fact, stating that the employee is disqualified from any further service with the Carrier.

 Carrier asserts that its action was appropriate because, concededly, Divide Tower is a very busy Claimant's inability to properly perform his job on the date in question,coupled with prior discipli operational requirements)-justifies its determination to disqualify the Claimant from the tower in question, without a disqualification from performance of duty in other to






We also note in Award 13854, that the Board held that there was no rational basis for adding a suspension to the demotion. In the instant dispute, the Carrier has attempted to explain the rationale for the 30-day suspension in its Ex Parte Submission to this Board, however, the correspondence hand justification for the suspension; but rather, limits itself to a consideration of the propriety of t will sustain the claim to the extent of requiring that Carrier make Claimant whole for wages he lost We will not disturb the Carrier's determination to disqualify Claimant as Train Director at Divide Tower.



That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and



Claim sustained to the extent stated in the Opinion of the Board.
                        By Order of Third Division


        ATTEST: Executive Secret' ar


        Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of May 1974.


c~Jf Y7